Pulitzer Investigations

So, recently I posted about how strangely I thought the Pulitzers were awarded this year.

I hadn't read Glenn Greenwald's post about this, until today:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/21-6

Go figure. 

"From Édgar, 5, Coughs Heard Round the World"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/world/americas/29mexico.html?_r=1&hp

WHYYYYYYY are we releasing a 5-year old boy's name as the perpetrator of the swine flu? Is this really necessary?????

The girl in the window

It was announced yesterday that Lane DeGregory of The St. Petersburg Times won a Pulitzer for her article, "The Girl in the Window." After many years of writing truly engaging, fascinating pieces of investigative, narrative journalism, DeGregory has received the top award in her field.

Which got me thinking, is it the top award in journalism? Should it be?

NPR noted in their article about the top Pulitzer winners this year:

"No Pulitzers were awarded for coverage of the biggest financial crisis since the Depression. And despite a rule change that allowed online-only news organizations to compete for Pulitzers for the first time, none of them won any prizes."

Also, this year the New York Times was awarded with five prizes - including their international reporting of "deepening U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan", and the investigative reporting behind "revealing how networks used military commentators who had ties to the Pentagon or defense contractors.

Now, I wonder, is this so? Did the NYT really start all of these conversations. They seem like dialogue that would have been started by Democracy Now! years ago. I haven't been following the patterns of Pulitzers in years passed, but I am starting to wonder if they are any more credible than Oscars or Academy Awards. 

Regardless, I think that Lane DeGregory receiving the award was well-deserved. I'm just now more than ever curious about the credibility behind the Pulitzer awarding process.

A place for peace in music

Regardless of how much of an Ithaca hippie I sound like, I'm going to attempt this post anyways....

Socially active songsters are no new phenomenon but instead, continue to be a harmonic reminder of upheaval around the world. And, at times, it seems like it's the only way people will listen to it. Artists like John Legend (Show Me Campaign) and Michael Franti (Iknowimnotalone) - amongst many others - give a melodic backdrop to the stories about extreme poverty and war that are occurring around the world and at times, seem to hard to hear. Others, creep the issues into their lyrics: Radiohead, Andrew Bird, Ani DiFranco. Thankfully we have them, for the times when even Nikolas Kristof seems too whiny or we can't bare to look at one more picture of a malnourished child. Because ignoring it won't help anything - and sometimes a song seems to help.

ChickenFootStew

I stumbled across this blog, Social Upheaval, which is a part of the Progressive Blog Alliance. It seems to be a one-woman job, but there's not too much About Me included. Regardless, the self-described feminist activist includes an interesting combination of topics: ranging from economics to Jewish Voices for Peace to nuclear threats from corporate America. Plus, she's got the list of included blogs from the Progressive Blog Alliance on her page. It's encouraging to see, although she has few posts, that some women are taking the time to discuss what really matters. (versus: this)

Oprah cancels Columbine show

On Apr. 20, in the memory of the tragic Columbine shootings on it's 10th anniversary, Oprah chose to... not do an anniversary show.  The story was featured everywhere, including HuffPo. And, linked at the bottom were three similar stories:

1. A book called, "Do you know who your children are?"

2. A clever, ad-lib style letter from the Josh Sugarmann, the exec. director of the Violence Policy Center and author of "Every Handgun is Aimed at you: The case for Banning Handguns".

3. "10 years after Columbine, Elected Officials Doing Nothing is Not Working"

In an amazing way, Oprah managed to use her celebrity name to - at least on HuffPo - to direct attention to the stories that really matter, that really need attention on the anniversary of Columbine. She wrote on Oprah.com, "I decided to pull the Columbine show today. After reviewing it, I thought it focused too much on the killers. Today, hold a thought for the Columbine community..."

Oprah showed restraint and even though millions of people may have tuned into her anniversary show, maybe some of them will have clicked the link on some web page that described her canceling her show - and hopefully, click on to read about what needs to be done to prevent this from ever happening again.

Grappling to place blame for Global Warming

Two headlines placing blame for global warming were featured on different news sites today. One, managed to blame the "fatties" and the other, blamed the malnourished. 

The Sun featured a story, "Fatties cause global warming" - which Drudge stuck at the front, top of his site yesterday. I'm sure it's because the article managed to get the word "fatties" in the headline, but that's besides the point.

Across the pond, NYT featured an article, "Third World Stove Soot is Target in Climate Fight", arguing that the process of cooking family dinner in developing countries  is causing the glaciers to melt. 

Of course, it's not uncommon to read an article concerning global warming in mainstream media today. It's just getting a little frustrating to read about the variety of causes instead of the variety of solutions. How about more articles explaining what the heck all of the little numbers on the bottom of recyclable bottles mean. Or, how to compost in your own area. Or maybe, how to combat your own carbon footprint. At the risk of turning every mainstream medium into a raging environmentalist, some more articles including researchers and their helpful hints would be - well, helpful.